ZDA, LLC Supply Chain Recruiting’s Post

🚨 Do you have employees in Texas? 🤔🏜️🐂🤠 This article could save you $50,000 per employee in fines as Texas takes a bold stand against COVID-19 vaccination mandates. 🙅♂️ A new law prohibits employers from enforcing vaccine requirements for workers. 📰 Check out this insightful article brought to you by Business Benefits Group. Stay informed about the latest legal developments impacting employers in Texas. 👉 Key points: - Private employers in Texas are now prohibited from mandating COVID-19 vaccinations. - The law covers all employers with one or more employees in Texas, including healthcare facilities. - Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) is enforcing the law and developing rules for implementation. 🛡️ Know your rights! Employees, contractors, and job applicants are protected from vaccination mandates under this new law. 🚫 Employers found in violation may face hefty penalties. Stay compliant and keep your workforce informed. #BBG #HR #Compliance # #LegalUpdate #TexasEmployment #COVID19Law #EmployeeRights #TexasLaw #COVID19 #themoreyouknow🌈🌟

Perth cop loses vaccine mandate challenge in Western Australia Supreme Court Decision, because his job required him to sacrifice some rights in order to perform his role effectively, especially in cases of State of Emergency. That is, whatever right he had to bodily integrity, was secondary to what was required of his job. According to the judges: "As members of a hierarchical disciplined force, with obligations of loyalty and obedience, police officers voluntarily undertake the curtailment of some fundamental rights, freedoms and immunities. " Therefore, "... s 5 (of the Police Act) authorised the Employer Direction as it applied to Mr Falconer and the Commissioner was empowered, by s 5, to infringe Mr Falconer's right to bodily integrity in the manner provided for by the Employer Direction." The reasons for this conclusion: 1. The purpose of section 5 of the Police Act acknowledges that some personal rights of police officers might be limited or removed in certain situations. (paragraph 239) 2. Additionally, achieving the goal of the Police Act—to maintain peace and order in Western Australia—will naturally limit private rights and freedoms. (paragraph 240) 3. As outlined in the cases of Police Service Board v Morris and Anderson v Sullivan, the structure of the Police Act and Police Force Regulations implies that police officers have agreed to give up certain fundamental rights and freedoms that the Commissioner may restrict. (paragraph 243) 4. While bodily integrity is a fundamental right, the law does not absolutely protect it from being violated. In this case, the required vaccination is seen as a relatively minor violation of this right. (paragraph 244) 5. The legislature intended that the Commissioner has the authority to issue directions or orders necessary for police officers to effectively perform their duties and maintain peace and order in Western Australia. This power adapts to various situations that might impact a police officer’s ability to serve. Therefore, if a police officer needs to take certain actions to be able to perform their duties, the Commissioner can mandate these actions, even if they affect the officer’s bodily integrity, as long as they are appropriate for ensuring the officer can fulfill their role. (paragraphs 245-247). What does this mean? If I was a police officer in Western Australia, I would find this ruling concerning. Some questions this raises: Could this also apply to other organizations with similar characteristics as the police force, such as the military? Moving forward, should police contracts explicitly state that officers agree to waive their right to bodily integrity as a condition of employment, to ensure they understand what they are sacrificing for their role? Must employees explicitly state their right to non-consent to medical coercion at their place of work? Upholding our human rights certainly comes at a high cost, doesn't it?

Last week, the Ontario Court of Appeal upheld a lower court’s decision, which found that an employee’s refusal to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy constituted “frustration” (linked below in the comments). In this case, the employee’s employment ended after they refused to comply with the vaccination policy of the employer’s main client. The Court of Appeal found that the employee was not entitled to any wrongful dismissal damages, as the vaccination policy constituted a supervening event that amounted to frustration of contract. Though COVID-19 mandatory vaccination policies may no longer be a hot topic, this decision demonstrates that an unforeseen circumstance, outside the control of an employer or employee, that radically alters a contract can give rise to a successful argument of frustration. Employers should consider this decision the next time that (a) an external requirement impacts the employee’s ability to work or the function of workplace as a whole (e.g., changes in professional licencing, obtaining security clearance, etc.) and (b) the employee cannot (or chooses not to) fulfill the requirement.

This article from the The Australian discusses that a Queensland court ruling upholding workers’ right to say no to Covid-19 vaccinations is likely to be a “false dawn” for other Australians trying to retrospectively challenge employers on the issue. Principal Tim McDonald shares his insights on the implications of this ruling in NSW. McDonald says that in the Queensland case, Justice Martin “doesn’t disagree, that at common law, it is not unlawful to have a vaccination policy as long as people are not forced to have the vaccination. But he distinguishes the common law approach to consent in the Kassam case from the test in the Queensland Human Rights Act, which states there must be full and free, as well as informed, consent. That’s a broader test of consent and it leads Justice Martin to a different conclusion to that reached in NSW. This decision is therefore unlikely to have any application in NSW.” Read the article below. #AusLaw #Covid #LegalInsights #EmploymentLaw #McCabes #NSW

Florida passes law prohibiting businesses from requiring employees to be vaccinated   Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a law on August 1, 2023, that prohibits businesses from requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The law, known as the "Vaccine Freedom Act," also prohibits employers from requiring proof of vaccination as a condition of employment.   The law has been criticized by public health groups, who argue that it could lead to an increase in COVID-19 cases. However, supporters of the law argue that it is a violation of individual liberty.   The law goes into effect on January 1, 2024.   #hrlegacy #humanresourses #reclutamiento #selección #selection

Vaccination Requirement may Frustrate Employment The Court of Appeal for Ontario has applied the doctrine of frustration to uphold the termination of the employment contract of an employee, who refused to comply with a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy imposed on an employer by a client providing over 99% of the employer’s work. Follow the link for the entire article: https://bit.ly/3UVBR0a Contact Unwana Udo (uudo@sorbaralaw.com) for your litigation questions #mandatory #covid #vaccine #vaccination #frustration #terminate #termination #employment #employee #policy #office #work #flu

Human Rights Act implications of the “bungled” Police and Ambos vaccine mandates Johnston v Carroll/Witthahn v Wakefield [2024] QSC 2 On 27 Feb, Martin SJA gave judgment after a trial mainly held in mid 2022, in 3 proceedings brought by 86 parties against Queensland Police and Ambulance Services that challenged directions to workers issued in 2021- 2022. The decisions make interesting reading for those who practice in the HR Act space. During the covid epidemic (you have probably forgotten it?) the Police Commissioner gave directions that most police officers and staff had to be vaccinated. The DG of Qld Health gave a similar direction to the employees of the Ambulance. These directions required emergency service workers to receive Covid-19 vaccines and boosters or face disciplinary action, including termination of employment. Each decision maker and the Services for which they acted was a public entity for the purposes of s 58 of the HRA, and therefore bound by it. The scope of what are public entities has not yet been finally concluded in the case law on this issue thus far. The reasons involve a careful analysis of Section 58(1) of the HR Act. It imposes 2 obligations: (a) Substantive: not to make a decision in a way that is incompatible with human rights: s 58(1)(a); and (b)Procedural: not to fail to give proper consideration to a relevant human right in making a decision: s 58(1)(b) The Police Commissioner failed to demonstrate that, before making her Directions, she did what was required under s 58 the HR Act. In fact, the Court was critical of evidence the Commissioner and the deputy Commissioner gave about what consideration they gave at all to those matters, and concluded that the summary list of matters the Commissioner said she considered was a document not even in existence at the time she made her decision and that it came into existence later. The Court did not accept that the Commissioner had: (a) either identified the human rights that might be affected by the decision; or (b) considered whether the decision would be compatible with human rights. As for the Ambo's the DG of Health had not established that the direction made was authorized by an implied term in their employment contracts allowing for lawful and reasonable directions. Hence it was unlawful for a different reason to that which invalidated the Police directive, and did not involve an analysis of HR Act requirements under S 58. The 2nd part of the reasons contain an interesting analysis of whether all directions limited the human rights referred to in s17(c) of the Human Rights Act and whether that limitation was reasonable under the proportionality test in s13.The best way to proceed was to make declarations that the directions were unlawful and then made orders restraining the decision-makers from acting on them. #humanrights #humanrightslaw #police #queensland #covid19 #covid19response #covid19vaccine #vaccines #vaccination #mandates

Mandatory Vaccinations during Covid 19 Pandemic were illegal! Massive Class Action and compensation for those illegally sacked or reprimanded for refusing to take the first or any consequential vaccination! The United Nations Charter 21 on health states: The right to be free from torture & non-consensual medical treatment and experimentation.  "Informed decisions can be made only with knowledge of the purpose and nature, the consequences, and the risks of the treatment and rehabilitation supplied before any treatment and must ensure that health and rehabilitation services provided to persons with disabilities, and the sharing of their personal health or rehabilitation information, occur only after the person concerned has given their free and informed consent, and that health and rehabilitation professionals inform persons with disabilities of their relevant rights; Clive Palmer claims 'great victory' in funding challenge to Queensland's Covid vaccine mandate. Billionaire Clive Palmer claims to have set a worldwide precedent after funding a successful challenge to Queensland's Covid-19 vaccine mandates, while raising the prospect of further legal action. A result of Clive Palmer's legal action. Only a billionaire can afford to prosecute a case like this. that suggests the Australian legal system is not working. The UN charter says any medical intervention must be through informed consent. A principle the Queensland and Australian government bulldozed over during the Pandemic. QANTAS pilots sacked, aged care workers sacked, child care workers sacked, ospital workers sacked. The cost of compensation if this is not overturned will be billions. Where is the Australian Royal Commission into the Covid 19 Pandemic response. The Australian government are waiting for the guilty to leave office at State and Federal level, so no one may be held accountable! This opens up a raft of questions for bureaucracies in Australia and elsewhere. Where was the Attorney General and his advisors when the mandatory vaccine edicts were created. Did they advise this could be an illegal measure? What about the State and Federal Ombudsman and the State Attorney Generals? A massive flood of class actions and individual compensation cases will now ensue. https://lnkd.in/gfc2ntKZ